Hollywood venue means it has to be something relevant to the digital cinema market.

Come on, give us 1080p @300fps. (demo'd at IBC two years ago) That's like seeing through an open window and is properly stunning to watch.

<wild speculation> is that what the 300 part of the name is about? </wild speculation>

300 is a reference to the movie: "Spartannnnnnssssss!!!!!"

I still think it makes ZERO sense that Canon would make a camera with a specific EF and specific PL mount. That would be so limiting on the types of lenses that can be used. Sony FS100 and Panasonic AF101 are obviously mirrorless with a short flange length, therefore they can adopt basically any lens ever made, including EF and PL.

It would be really unwise for Canon to use an EF mount (long-ish flange length) which would limit the type of lenses that are adoptable. Plus EF mount can already adopt PL mount. Ideally, they would just have a short flange mount with an EF electronic adaptor. That makes the most sense.

So please Canon, just don't be Canon and release a camera with an EF mount in yet another attempt to get people to buy your lenses. Make a better camera instead, like Sony and Panasonic did.

I think it will be two different cameras: EF at $5K to $15K (FS100 or F3 competitor), and PL much more expensive, perhaps $50K (alexa competitor)

but yes: either that, or interchangeable mounts, having two different versions of the same camera makes no sense (ahem, it's like having a PAL and an NTSC version, ahem, absolutely stupid, ahem, sony, ahem...)

Looks like they are really trying to emphasize that this thing does an amazing job of color reproduction. People are nailing it for not being 4k output thought. $20 is kinda steep though. Still...if it does a better job of color reproduction that Red Camera, then even at 2k it will be worth it.

But seriously, can it be that much better than the 1dx? They both produce the same output, with the same compression.